Hi Robert, (I'll CC the list, this may be interesting to others)
On 08/31/2017 03:52 PM, Robert Hartung wrote: > The main problem is that it is NOT sufficient to provide pm_layered and > periph_pm. As the various CPUs provide different implementations. Actually, that is sufficient. > The various defines look something like this: > > cpu/saml21: cpu/cortexm_common, cpu/sam0_common > defines pm_set() > > cpu/samd21: cpu/cortexm_common, cpu/sam0_common > defines pm_set() > > boards/mulle: cpu/k60 > > cpu/k60: cpu/cortexm_common, cpu/kinetis_common > > cpu/cortexm_common: > defines pm_set(), pm_set_lowest(), pm_reboot() > > cpu/kinetis_common: > defines pm_set() All of them who define pm_set() support pm_layered. cortexm_common just provides a fallback for pm_set_lowest() which at least sets the ARM CPU into idle. > These are only two examples of conflicts. The question here would be why > do we have multiple "common" CPUs and where should the sleep modes be > implemented? The common cpus are nested, e.g., k60 -> kinetis_common -> cortexm_common. This is how I envision it: - if a CPU has a proper pm_set(), it depends on pm_layered - if not, possibly e.g., kinetis_common has pm_set(), then that should depend on pm_layered - if not, the cpu (or e.g., kinetis_common) might depend on cortexm_periph_pm_fallback (where the current cortexm weak defines should go) - if the cpu (or any common ancestor) has it's own way of power management, it implements pm_set_lowest() - if not, it depends on periph_pm_fallback (which should wrap current drivers/periph_common/pm.c) That should cover all cases, right? > I guess I could just remove the periph/pm.c from kinetis_common? Yes! kinetis_common should use the cortexm_fallback, they're equivalent. Kaspar _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@riot-os.org https://lists.riot-os.org/mailman/listinfo/devel
